[rpd] AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT02 - Resource Transfer Policy

[Fernando Frediani]

What Frank is asking is not more what the ix expected from the Chairs, 
so try not to confuse discretionary answers with voluntary work which 
still has to be done and is expected, specially during these times after 
the PPM.

There is information and clarifications missing and it is fair to ask 
for these in order to make this process as transparent as possible for 
all, specially when there are doubts about some points.
Also please try no to confuse disagreements or more requests for more 
detailed questions to the Chairs as 'attacks'. One doesn't have anything 
with the other.
Regards

On 28/09/2020 19:27, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:

> Dear Frank,

>

> The chairs are already dealing with an overwhelming amount of workload 

> completely voluntary. I do not think it makes sense to expect them to 

> answer questions of every community member.

>

> The chairs have already fulfilled their duties by summarizing and 

> evaluating feedback on each policy. As Gaby pointed out, all 

> objections are already clearly listed. If you disagree with something 

> this is the matter of your personal opinion, and has nothing to do 

> with the duties of the co-chairs. They are not obligated to respond to 

> everyone personally.

>

> Let us stop attacking the co-chairs and focus on the relevant policies 

> instead.

>

> Best,

>

> Ekaterina

>

>

>

> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020, 20:18 Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz 

> <mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>> wrote:

>

>     Hi,

>

>     On 28/09/2020 20:40, Gaby Giner wrote:

>     > Hi Noah,

>     >

>     > The co-chairs have already put together a list of the objections for

>     > each proposal. Please refer to that. If you insist they're not

>     valid,

>     > well it could be that your definition of what is valid is

>     different from

>     > what the co-chairs observe as valid. For me, the objections

>     presented

>     > are already valid.

>

>     Not to me.

>     I have sent questions.

>     A week ago.

>     I re-sent today.

>

>     People asking for definitions of a thing that a policy is not

>     needing to

>     define - that's not a valid objection to me.

>

>     People accusing the policy to force members to reply to abuse email is

>     not correct, because that's not what the policy does.

>

>     I have the very sad feeling that there are a lot of alternative facts

>     going around here.

>

>     Unless chairs respond to my questions I will consider most of the

>     objections listed by the chairs as irrelevant.

>

>     If you are right and the objections are valid, sure there will be

>     answers, right???

>

>     Thanks,

>     Frank

>

>     _______________________________________________

>     RPD mailing list

>     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>     <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200928/c650c6e7/attachment.html>